Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
T1 and T2 seems to be a good dividing line for the next big OS purge. The snag with this is that iMacs didn't get T2 until the 2020 model.
T1 would be awkward because you're nixing literally every other Broadwell, Skylake, and Kaby Lake systems for everything. I do believe that the T2 will probably be the final dividing line. Though, I could also see Apple doing a "2019 Mac Pro or 10th Gen Intel or newer" at some point; but by that point, they may just rather ditch the x86 code entirely to trim the fat off the OS (a la Snow Leopard from Leopard). But yeah, certainly iMac users will get the shaft when that eventually happens. Though, with Big Sur, they got the shaft pretty hard too (given that iMacs were the only Haswell Macs excluded from being able to run it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
I always thought this was the biggest pile of BS ever. This is the biggest company on Earth and they couldn't write their own driver for it?
I think it might be more that they need a certain degree of support from the component manufacturer and it was the case that said manufacturer (I forget which of the three main ones it was) had already washed their hands of it. There was a similar issue with the ATI Radeon X1600 and ATI Radeon X1600 Mobility that was in the first two revs of Intel iMac and MacBook Pro. When AMD bought ATI (taking effect with the Radeon HD 2000 series), they abandoned drivers for the X1600 when it came to Windows; so literally all other Intel Macs (including Mac minis and MacBooks that were technically slower) got to run Windows 7 in Boot Camp, but those first iMacs and MacBook Pros were left out in the cold. All that to say that it's not on Apple or Microsoft to make up for a company not providing driver support. Apple certainly has more control than Microsoft, but even then, there needs to be a big of support from the component manufacturer as well.

I'm wondering how much of this we'll see in the Apple Silicon Mac era. There are still some third party components; but more and more things are moving to that SoC and are squarely in Apple's control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
T1 would be awkward because you're nixing literally every other Broadwell, Skylake, and Kaby Lake systems for everything. I do believe that the T2 will probably be the final dividing line. Though, I could also see Apple doing a "2019 Mac Pro or 10th Gen Intel or newer" at some point; but by that point, they may just rather ditch the x86 code entirely to trim the fat off the OS (a la Snow Leopard from Leopard). But yeah, certainly iMac users will get the shaft when that eventually happens. Though, with Big Sur, they got the shaft pretty hard too (given that iMacs were the only Haswell Macs excluded from being able to run it).
Thing is, a lot of iMacs should have CPU horsepower to run any OS, it's just weaknesses in GPU in certain SKUs or a lack of RAM that will be an issue. T1 was short-lived in 2016 and 2017 MacBook Pros, T2 is more commonplace and is in many 2018/19 Macs (except for missing out on the iMac until 2020).

I assumed that Apple would drop Intel support at some point in the medium to long term but if they release a (final?) iteration of the Mac Pro that's potentially up to 6 more years of software support that they will be providing for various Intel Macs. Obviously domestic Macs below the Pro may then be picked off individually for performance reasons - I'm thinking the MacBook Airs and 13" laptops in general.

T2 seems an easy delineating line then but that's still at least 2-3 years down the line, especially if 2019 iMacs are going to be thrown under the bus - they didn't go off sale until August 2020 so would it be easy enough to call time on pre-T2 Macs in October 2025 in 4 years?
 
Last edited:
Has anyone tested Monterey on a 2015 MBA with 4GB of RAM? If so, how is it holding up thus far?
I have a 11-inch, early 2015 (1.6 Ghz i5 and 8GB RAM) at work. Did the upgrade this afternoon from Big Sur to this beta 1. Since I am not on-site, it's hard to tell the performance from remote. I'm sure there's a 4GB RAM MacBook Air somewhere at work.
 
I have a 11-inch, early 2015 (1.6 Ghz i5 and 8GB RAM) at work. Did the upgrade this afternoon from Big Sur to this beta 1. Since I am not on-site, it's hard to tell the performance from remote. I'm sure there's a 4GB RAM MacBook Air somewhere at work.
Thanks for the reply. Hopefully, you or someone else will come across some feedback on the 4GB model.
 
If it runs but terribly so, it's bad for Apple's image. They don't want people to see their new OS choking and wheezing on a machine carrying their brand.

I understand that, but Big Sur was running on it why can't it run Monterey? I don't see anything special added to Monterey that will not make it be able to run just as good as Big Sur was?
 
Thing is, a lot of iMacs should have CPU horsepower to run any OS, it's just weaknesses in GPU in certain SKUs or a lack of RAM that will be an issue.

Not always. It was the GPU for Mojave. For Catalina, I think Apple just didn't want to have to support nine year Mac Pros with aftermarket video cards. For Big Sur it was Intel dropping extended support for Ivy Bridge and the Wi-Fi adapter in the 2013 iMacs being dropped from support from its manufacturer so that Apple couldn't update their driver for it (for Big Sur). With Intel Macs, getting cut from a new major macOS release is more about either not having a technical capability to do something fundamental to the new OS (i.e. Metal support) or not being able to produce an updated driver for the new OS.

T1 was short-lived in 2016 and 2017 MacBook Pros, T2 is more commonplace and is in many 2018/19 Macs (except for missing out on the iMac until 2020).

Right, the T1 would be a bad dividing line. But it also is the case that the T1 didn't change that many things that are fundamental to how the Mac operates and boots (if any). The T2 was almost an entirely different breed of Intel Mac. I could absolutely see the T2 being the final (or, if they have one more that excludes anything that isn't 2019 Mac Pro or 10th Gen Intel, the second to final) dividing line before it's simply "you must have M1 or later". I could see one that's 2016 Macs (and maybe 2013 Mac Pro) or newer as that would make it (Mac Pro aside) a Skylake and newer requirement. Given that this is the steepest exclusion that we've had in a while, it could be that we see the final Intel compatible release of macOS in 2025 or 2026. I'm thinking it will be on the later end of that.

I assumed that Apple would drop Intel support at some point in the medium to long term but if they release a (final?) iteration of the Mac Pro that's potentially up to 6 more years of software support that they will be providing for various Intel Macs. Obviously domestic Macs below the Pro may then be picked off individually for performance reasons - I'm thinking the MacBook Airs and 13" laptops in general.
They don't drop based on one model's given performance (though, I'd imagine that, in the case of the 2015 12" MacBook, it WAS a performance issue). Again, it's usually a lack of driver/firmware support from the manufacturer or lack of a specific hardware feature that is important to that OS release (e.g. Metal support)

T2 seems an easy delineating line then but that's still at least 2-3 years down the line, especially if 2019 iMacs are going to be thrown under the bus - they didn't go off sale until August 2020 so would it be easy enough to call time on pre-T2 Macs in October 2025 in 4 years?
I'd say that 2025 for T2 Macs is conservative. I'm thinking 2026 or 2027. Not 2028 at this rate. It also depends on whether or not we get years where the requirements don't change (or when only an older Mac Pro is getting dropped). There's also the question of whether or not there will be a dividing line in between T2 (i.e. between 8th/9th and 10th Gen or between butterfly keyboard and Magic keyboard, etc.). I doubt that there will be anything other than the T2 or lack of driver support for a component to mark a cutoff in between 6th and 9th generation Intel systems. Not much changed there.
 
Last edited:
So Broadwell and newer. Though that wouldn't explain the 2015 15" MacBook Pro and 2014 Mac mini, both of which are Haswell, nor the 2013 Mac Pro which is Ivy Bridge-E. I know with Big Sur it all came down to a Wi-Fi card driver. I wonder what the dividing line is here. Also, this worries me as I didn't think we'd see Broadwell Macs being a minimum requirement for a good while. I feel like we only have two more cullings before Intel Macs are out of support altogether (one wherein its 2016 and newer, and then one where T2 Macs are the only Intel Macs still supported). Sad.
Hi!

"I know with Big Sur it all came down to a Wi-Fi card driver."

Yes, I think they look for drivers that they can rip out, just to make the new OS incompatible with the older hardware.

I don't like this planned obsolesce. That's the main drawback with the Apple ecosystem.
 
My mid 2014 13 inch BMP is now being orphaned. The 2015 is the last MBP with sensible USB ports, Thunderbolt, HDMI and Magsafe 2 (which I have numerous power supplies for).
The 2016 version seems pathetic in comparison.
So I might slightly upgrade to the 2015 MBP, only to limp along for a year or so.
 
My mid 2014 13 inch BMP is now being orphaned. The 2015 is the last MBP with sensible USB ports, Thunderbolt, HDMI and Magsafe 2 (which I have numerous power supplies for).
The 2016 version seems pathetic in comparison.
So I might slightly upgrade to the 2015 MBP, only to limp along for a year or so.
Why not just stay with the mid-2014 13 inch? It has fulfilled all your needs thus far. Is there a feature in the latest OS that would be worth upending your system (any new-to-you system could potentially have issues your current one doesn’t)?
 
Why not just stay with the mid-2014 13 inch? It has fulfilled all your needs thus far. Is there a feature in the latest OS that would be worth upending your system (any new-to-you system could potentially have issues your current one doesn’t)?
Switching to another, almost identical, laptop is not a problem for me.
I think the price for the upgrade (I'll offset by selling the old one) is worth a year or two of the next version macOS.
 
All notebook batteries eventually swell. That's a safety feature (they swell rather than explode). But some computers have had issues where they wear out too quickly. 6 years is about normal for needing to replace a battery.

Thanks for responding, in this Macbook Pro, the problems started with not being able to fully close the lid and that started three years ago, anyway mine is not included in the range that were recalled, so I assume that means it does not have an increased fire risk, but for those that wore out too quickly or had that fire risk, that was a design problem, correct?

If that was a specific design issue causing the early problems, has that been solved, has there been a specific change employed in 2021 Macbook Pros in relation to the specific cause of the battery problems in the 2015 and older Macbook Pros?
 
Hi!

"I know with Big Sur it all came down to a Wi-Fi card driver."

Yes, I think they look for drivers that they can rip out, just to make the new OS incompatible with the older hardware.

I don't like this planned obsolesce. That's the main drawback with the Apple ecosystem.
The notion that "planned obsolescence" is a thing with Apple somehow just doesn't compute. Because why then would my old iPad Air 2 be getting iPadOS 15 this fall, 4.5 years after discontinuation, 7 years after introduction? Why would Apple have bothered in 2019 to push out a GPS fix for the ancient iPhone 4s, 5 years after discontinuation, 9 years after introduction? For example.

While there are sometimes things that might look like planned obsolescence, I assume that mostly comes down to the actual reason not being obvious. Like a WiFi hardware supplier ceasing support for certain chipsets.
I'm quite positive Apple generally tries to support any device as long as they can justify the effort.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BeatCrazy
The notion that "planned obsolescence" is a thing with Apple somehow just doesn't compute. Because why then would the iPad Air 2 be getting iPadOS 15 this fall, 4.5 years after discontinuation, 7 years after introduction? Why would Apple have bothered in 2019 to push out a GPS fix for the ancient iPhone 4s, 5 years after discontinuation, 9 years after introduction?

While there are sometimes things that might look like planned obsolescence, I assume that mostly comes down to the actual reason not being obvious.
I'm quite positive Apple generally tries to support any device as long as they can justify the effort.
Sure it's planned.
Just in a clever way.
As an actual computer engineer I can tell you that it's very easy to disable any features that the hardware won't support, and still allow the general new operating system to run just fine.
It's very well planned. Make no mistake about it.

If the reason is greed or anal retentiveness, that's a different question.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
The notion that "planned obsolescence" is a thing with Apple somehow just doesn't compute. Because why then would the iPad Air 2 be getting iPadOS 15 this fall, 4.5 years after discontinuation, 7 years after introduction?
I think, much like “monopoly” and “dictatorship”, people feel aggrieved and they want to pull others into their grief so they use words and phrases they don’t really understand to indicate why Apple is so horrible. I’m sure someone will reply saying how it’s still planned, just planned WELL INTO THE FUTURE… which is, like, every company.

Deep down, they’re still emotionally in pain from Apple discontinuing their monitors, their wireless access points, FCP7, coming out with an expensive tower, or something else. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Sure it's planned.
Just in a clever way.
As an actual computer engineer I can tell you that it's very easy to disable any features that the hardware won't support, and still allow the general new operating system to run just fine.
It's very well planned. Make no mistake about it.

If the reason is greed or anal retentiveness, that's a different question.
How would you explain Apple generally setting the gold standard in mobile device support lifespan, and continuing to push it further? With extremes like the examples I mentioned?

Are you suggesting that's all part of the plan, to give them some kind of alibi? If yes, that makes no sense whatsoever, the average consumer doesn't know or care that the iPad Air 2 gets 8 years of latest OS or whether the 10 people in the world (exaggerating) still using an iPhone 4s can continue to have GPS.
 
How would you explain Apple generally setting the gold standard in mobile device support lifespan, and continuing to push it further? With extremes like the examples I mentioned?

Are you suggesting that's all part of the plan, to give them an alibi? If yes, that makes no sense whatsoever, the average consumer doesn't know or care that the iPad Air 2 gets 8 years of latest OS or whether the 10 people in the world (exaggerating) still using an iPhone 4s can continue to have GPS.
Well, the explanation is pretty simple. With iOS devices the income is from the app store. With macOS devices it's different. Don't be naive.
Look, I actually LIKE Apple! Just don't be so naive!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alwis
I think, much like “monopoly” and “dictatorship”, people feel aggrieved and they want to pull others into their grief so they use words and phrases they don’t really understand to indicate why Apple is so horrible. I’m sure someone will reply saying how it’s still planned, just planned WELL INTO THE FUTURE… which is, like, every company.

Deep down, they’re still emotionally in pain from Apple discontinuing their monitors, their wireless access points, FCP7, coming out with an expensive tower, or something else. ;)
Sure, it's painful. What's wrong with that? Do you think dictatorships are ok too?
 
Well, the explanation is pretty simple. With iOS devices the income is from the app store. With macOS devices it's different. Don't be naive.
Look, I actually LIKE Apple! Just don't be so naive!
Ah yes, those iPhone 4s users on iOS 9 certainly still generated a lot of App Store revenue in 2019. Yeah sure! 😅
 
Sure, it's painful. What's wrong with that? Do you think dictatorships are ok too?
This is my point exactly. :)
Do you know what a dictatorship is?

And there’s nothing wrong with the pain people feel, others just have to realize that the words being used aren’t meant to be logical, they’re an emotional outpouring from that pain they feel.
 
Ah yes, those iPhone 4s users on iOS 9 certainly still generated a lot of App Store revenue in 2019. Yeah sure! 😅
Look, I'm NOT an MS bumboy, or any such thing. OK? I'm stating some obvious things. If you are uneducated in engineering subjects and actually believe it would be difficult to let older Macs run a newer macOS, then so be it. Don't bother me any more? OK?
 
Look, I'm NOT an MS bumboy, or any such thing. OK? I'm stating some obvious things. If you are uneducated in engineering subjects and actually believe it would be difficult to let older Macs run a newer macOS, then so be it. Don't bother me any more? OK?
Did I offend you? I'm not the one calling people naive..

Going by your logic that there's different intentions behind Mac and iOS support durations, why are there numerous examples of Macs being supported up to 8 years after discontinuation, not even including further security patches?

If you're not ready to have your "obvious things" challenged, maybe just refrain from stating them in a public forum.
 
Did I offend you? I'm not the one calling people naive..

Going by your logic that there's different intentions behind Mac and iOS support durations, why are there various examples of Macs being supported up to 8 years after discontinuation, not even including further security patches?

If you're not ready to have your "obvious things" challenged, maybe just refrain from stating them in a public forum.

Did I offend you? I'm not the one calling people naive..

Going by your logic that there's different intentions behind Mac and iOS support durations, why are there numerous examples of Macs being supported up to 8 years after discontinuation, not even including further security patches?

If you're not ready to have your "obvious things" challenged, maybe just refrain from stating them in a public forum.
ok. yawn. Good night.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.